The above link also links to the Daily Variety article within the story.

I'm ambivalent on this. On one hand, I feel it's too soon for Star Trek to return, even 2 years from now. And a Kirk and Spock prequel? I'm not crazy about the thought of young, studly WB-looking guys portraying young Jim Kirk and young Spock. (Or God forbid: Matthew Fox was Spock and Josh Holloway as Kirk.) Filling in all the blank years of Star Trek's history underscores the reason why Star Trek needs to remain on hiatus: No One Has Any New Ideas For Star Trek. There is no vision for boldly going where no [one] has gone before. I sure don't need a young Kirk and Spock movie, which, if it had to be made at all, probably should have been made 20 years ago when Harve Bennett had the idea.

On the other hand, J.J. Abrams is a talent to be reckoned with. I missed the boat on Alias and watched a bit more Felicity than I care to fully admit, but the two hour pilot for Lost was a masterfully crafted piece of work and in my mind one of the best movies of 2004, even though it was a TV series. I'm seeing Mission Impossible 3 purely on the faith that Abrams can deliver a fantastic action/espionage picture. Damon Lindelof and the Lost producers joining Abrams in this Star Trek venture at least creates some assurance of a level of quality to the project.

But at the end of the day, a young Kirk and Spock prequel isn't what Star Trek needs. It needs new ideas, a new vision of the future, and getting back to using space travel and adventure as a vehicle for exploring the human condition.

I can only classify myself as a causal-to-regular fan of Trek, but Iím intrigued by the thought. I would advocate starting over from scratch in production and technology design and. We have cell phones that are smaller than the original communicators. A futuristic movie should reflect what we now think surpasses our modern devices. We canít hang on to what people forty years ago with a shoestring budget thought would look good four centuries later.

Wouldn't hurt also to not worry so much about continuity.

This is blasphemy, I know. But Trek has to reach out to the mainstream audience; the loyal fans weren't enough to make "Nemesis" a financial success, and the "Enterprise" show, while a good step in the right direction, didn't go far enough to win over loyalists or new fans.

(edited by Matt Tracker on 21.4.06 0906)"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker

Originally posted by Matt TrackerThis is blasphemy, I know. But Trek has to reach out to the mainstream audience; the loyal fans weren't enough to make "Nemesis" a financial success, and the "Enterprise" show, while a good step in the right direction, didn't go far enough to win over loyalists or new fans.

(edited by Matt Tracker on 21.4.06 0906)

Part of the problem was that Nemesis stunk on ice and the first season of Enterprise was absolutely horrid. Most of the serious fans I know would gladly have given Nemesis more support and more money, but they weren't willing to have their intelligence insulted in order to support the franchise. By the time that Enterprise allegedly got halfway decent, it was so far off the radar for me that I never noticed and really couldn't be bothered to try and pick it up again.

Trek is always going to be a niche product, much like sf in general. If they try and broaden the appeal too much, they risk losing what makes Trek distinctive and, well, at least somewhat unique as well as turning off their base. JMOHO

Originally posted by Matt TrackerI can only classify myself as a causal-to-regular fan of Trek, but Iím intrigued by the thought. I would advocate starting over from scratch in production and technology design and. We have cell phones that are smaller than the original communicators. A futuristic movie should reflect what we now think surpasses our modern devices. We canít hang on to what people forty years ago with a shoestring budget thought would look good four centuries later.

Wouldn't hurt also to not worry so much about continuity.

This is blasphemy, I know. But Trek has to reach out to the mainstream audience; the loyal fans weren't enough to make "Nemesis" a financial success, and the "Enterprise" show, while a good step in the right direction, didn't go far enough to win over loyalists or new fans.

(edited by Matt Tracker on 21.4.06 0906)

The thing is that broadening the audience and remaining loyal to the fanbase are not mutually exclusive. You see this same kind of "scorched earth" policy brought up all the time in comics fandom--"Oh, Marvel has ruined Spider-Man, the only way to fix it is to dump the backstory and start from scratch." No, you could continue in the path already laid out, and just not do crappy stories. The continuity isn't the problem here.

The problem with exploring history before Kirk commanded the Enterprise is that eventually you run out of "history" to cover; the problem with rebooting Kirk's run is that eventually you run out of the mark-out "Oh wow they reintroduced so-and-so!" moments. The only truly liberating setting for a Star Trek revival (and it feels ridiculous to call it that; Enterprise hasn't even been gone for a full year yet) is to venture further into the future with all-new characters. Much like the inception of TNG, the franchise would do far better trying to create the next Captain Picard than to attempt the millionth revisitation of Captain Kirk.

It's good to see the franchise will work, but off the heels of Enterprise I just don't see good things. Why can't we just take another 100 year jump with a new series? Afraid Battlestar Galactica (or even Stargate) will overshadow it?

What Trek needs is a bit of a break...a rest, if you will. Give it about ten years to rest before coming up with something new. Let the memory of Enterprise and Nemesis settle and fade. THEN...start something new.

If anything, I'd love to see a spinoff of Andromeda. I thought that show was brilliant.

"At the end of every hard-earned day, people find some reason to believe." -- Bruce Springsteen

Mission: Impossible III director J.J. Abrams is hitting back at unauthorized reports he is directing the next Star Trek movie. The Alias creator is furious the news was released prematurely and is also upset that key details regarding the storyline were incorrectly reported. He explains to Empire online, "The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation. People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate." Last week, Hollywood trade paper Variety, reported Abrams was on board and that the film would center on the early days of Captain James T. Kirk and Spock and that Philip Seymour Hoffman was in talks to play the ship's doctor. Abrams won't reveal the true storyline, but hints that it won't feature characters Captain James T. Kirk or Mr. Spock at all, but doesn't rule out bringing some of the original characters back for the new film, adding, "Those characters are so spectacular. I just think that..you know, they could live again."

"You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?" --Toby, West Wing